Richard Benyon (Shadow Minister, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Newbury, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 75, page 51, line 11, at end insert ‘or

(c) that the activity is maintenance dredging.’.

Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 12, in clause 75, page 51, line 24, at end add

‘“maintenance dredging” means the removal of accumulated sediments from harbour channels and berths undertaken on behalf of or by harbour authorities, marinas, yacht clubs and port facilities to ensure a safe depth of water for navigational purposes and the removal of sediment to restore adequate flow of water to mitigate risk of flooding or protect a sensitive habitat.’.

Richard Benyon (Shadow Minister, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Newbury, Conservative)

Clause 75(2) lists the conditions under which a marine licence is not needed for dredging or spoil disposal:

“that the activity is undertaken by or on behalf of a harbour authority, and...that the activity is authorised by, and carried out in accordance with, any legislation falling within subsection (3).”

We wish to insert a new condition:

“that the activity is maintenance dredging.”

The amendment would ensure that low-risk maintenance dredging was exempted from the licensing system. The explanatory notes to the draft Marine Bill stated that low-risk dredging activities, such as maintenance dredging, would become exempt under the new Bill. However, there is no specific commitment to that in this Bill, as amended in the other place. The Government have committed to consult on exempting maintenance dredging beyond the context of activities carried out by, or on behalf of, harbour authorities, thus ignoring the vital maintenance dredging carried out by marina and port operators. Harbour authorities are not always best placed  to carry out maintenance dredging and offering them a specific licensing exemption appears to give them an unfair advantage in a competitive market. For example, many harbour authorities have recreational moorings as a source of income. The harbour authority would be exempt from obtaining a maintenance dredging licence, but a marina in that harbour would be required to gain the appropriate licence, which would force it to raise mooring fees to cover the cost.

Exempting all forms of maintenance dredging would reduce costly bureaucracy at a local level and ensure a level playing field for coastal communities. Maintenance dredging does not involve the removal of river or sea beds, but the removal of accumulated sediment blocking navigation channels, and any environmental impact is therefore minimal. Amendment 12 would add a definition of maintenance dredging to the list of definitions in subsection (4)(a).

Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

I wish to make a few remarks about clause 75 and the amendments. Although I have some sympathy with the purpose and sentiments behind the amendments, my experience of working with coastal local authorities when dredging to maintain a safe and navigable channel is required is that one cannot undertake that work without considering the consequences for the wider hydrological system of tidal flows and other water courses that serve the estuary or the harbour that is being dredged for the safety of vessels using it. In such circumstances, as I have had the opportunity to look into them, it is appropriate to consult Trinity House, which has a range of important expertise, on navigable safety. Matters pertaining to Natural England also come into play, particularly if the estuary or harbour in question is a designated site of special scientific interest, or has another designation because the environment must be protected or considered.

At the level of the local authorities that, in many instances, provide the required dredging licences, there is the question of what happens to the dredged material. It is important to consider where, for example, sand or sediment that is excavated on to a dredging barge is deposited. It might be placed temporarily on land and then deposited elsewhere within the hydrological system to replace sand that will be lost from another area in the vicinity of the area being dredged. The consequences of dredging one area has a knock-on effect, particularly in a sandy environment such as on the dunes—the towans, as we know them—and sometimes in areas a number of miles away.

Hugo Swire (East Devon, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman is perhaps referring to his home town and the Hayle estuary, which has to be dredged regularly, thereby affecting the towns around it. Is he saying that hoops would have to be gone through every time the Hayle estuary was dredged? If the marina development there ever goes ahead, it will no doubt need to be dredged more than it is at the moment.

Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

Hayle harbour authority is responsible for maintaining a safe, navigable channel for harbour users, but that is not the only instance in which dredging takes place for such a purpose. A time-limited licence applies. A licence is not needed every time a boat goes  out to dredge the channel, but it applies for a period during which dredging activity may take place. That dredging clearly has an impact on the wider marine environment, not just on the area being dredged.

It is important that the Minister be aware that allowing a laissez-faire approach in some harbours and estuaries would mean that, where the harbour authority responsible for maintaining the safe, navigable channel goes ahead with its dredging activities without consideration of the consequences in the area around it, that would result in denuding sand and sediment from other areas, because it would be dredging those things from its own channel. That would also have knock-on consequences for the marine wildlife. In some circumstances—for example, when dredging a harbour or estuary that may have historical and archaeological remains in it—heritage bodies may need to be consulted as well.

Although I understand the purposes of the amendment, we need to press forward on this issue with some caution.

Ann McKechin (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Scotland Office; Glasgow North, Labour)

I thank the hon. Members for Newbury and for St. Ives for raising points that are live and important for a number of operators. There has been some uncertainty on the part of industry about whether the new licensing system will place disproportionate burdens on operators that regularly carry out vital dredging activities, which is why it is seeking an exemption for maintenance dredging.

The noble Lords in the other place rightly sought assurances from the Government that any exemptions from the licensing regime would be made with regard to the need to protect the environment and human health, and prevent interference with legitimate uses of the sea and other relevant factors. I may not be able to offer a general exemption for maintenance dredging today, but we are actively exploring the extent to which we can exempt low-risk dredging activities from the need for a marine licence.

We want to ensure that operators doing the necessary work of keeping navigational channels clear of silt and other debris can continue to do so without unnecessary regulatory burden, but still with adequate regard to the impact of their activities. Under the Bill, all forms of maintenance dredging will become licensable for the first time. However, the Bill is about applying regulatory controls proportionately to the risk and impact of the marine activity on the environment and human health, and on other uses of the sea.

In many cases, maintenance dredging has gone on in the same place for years without discernible impact, and we do not want unnecessarily to burden industry in those instances. It is right that maintenance dredging carried out by or on behalf of a harbour authority, and in accordance with a local Act or harbour order, should not have to be licensed under the Bill. As competent authorities, harbour authorities have a statutory duty to undertake activities in accordance with the relevant environmental obligations, and they are able to carry out such activities without the need for consent under the current regime.

However, we want to ensure that all other operators who are not subject to those statutory duties carry out maintenance dredging and other activities safely and with sufficient regard to the environment and other  risks. We want to ensure that a licensing authority has the information it needs to make sound and sustainable decisions on the licence applications it receives, including determining whether activities being undertaken in its area—whether they are licensed or exempt—are likely to have a cumulative impact.

Therefore, we are looking to use the exemptions order-making power in clause 74 to find a middle ground—an appropriate mechanism that will keep the regulatory burden to a minimum, while maintaining proper and appropriate standards of environmental protection, which was the concern raised by the hon. Member for St. Ives. Those standards include controls to ensure that activities will not compromise the achievement of other environmental objectives, such as those under the water framework directive. The exemptions order will come into force at the same time as the new licensing regime.

However, the licensing regime is not just about excluding or including activities. The Bill provides flexibility so that, if we choose to exempt an activity, we can place conditions on the carrying out of that activity that must be satisfied before it can be considered exempt. For example, we may want to look at whether we can exempt maintenance dredging carried out using lower-impact techniques such as hydrodynamic dredging, which involves the use of water jets to move sediment along the sea bed.

We will be looking to make use of the Bill’s flexibility and we will explore whether mechanisms such as registration or authorisation are appropriate to use where we choose to exempt low-risk activities, so that a licensing authority can retain sufficient overview of the activities being carried out in its area.

As the hon. Member for Newbury rightly pointed out, we are just about to launch a public consultation on our approach to those exemptions, including proposals for potentially low-risk activities such as maintenance dredging, which may be appropriate for exemption from the need for a marine licence. We are also looking to find the best ways of regulating those low-risk activities, whether through a form of licence or through a general or conditional exemption. Any decisions will be made in light of the responses to that consultation, further discussion and sound evidence.

Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

In the definition of what may or may not be considered “dredging”, the Minister referred to the use of water jets as a means of simply moving sediment on. As far as the definition of dredging is concerned for the purposes of the Bill itself, am I therefore right in understanding that sluicing might also be considered dredging, or have I misunderstood that?

Ann McKechin (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Scotland Office; Glasgow North, Labour)

Yes, it would. I have been advised that, under the maintenance dredging protocol for England, that would be the case.

Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

Would sluicing be considered dredging?

Ann McKechin (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Scotland Office; Glasgow North, Labour)

Sluicing would be, yes.

We also have to pay regard to our European environmental obligations when we are considering licensing, as well as the other relevant international conventions to which the UK is a signatory. I welcome  the participation of people and organisations in the consultation when it is launched; it will be a great opportunity to have an input into the Government’s policy.

I now turn to amendment 12. As hon. Members are perhaps aware, maintenance dredging is not a legally defined term. Some have sought to define it for the purposes of implementing various measures or controls, and I am aware that there are two such definitions. One is in the maintenance dredging protocol for England, which is an informal industry code of practice, and the other is used by the Marine and Fisheries Agency in the course of its existing consenting functions. The agency defines maintenance dredging as:

“Material (generally of an unconsolidated nature) arising:

from an area where the level of the seabed to be achieved by the dredging proposed is not lower (relative to Ordnance Datum), than it has been at any time during the preceding 10 years, or from an area for which there is evidence that dredging has previously been undertaken to that level (or lower) during that period.”

It will not surprise hon. Members that that definition is slightly different from the one used in the maintenance dredging protocol.

If a licensing authority considers it appropriate to exempt maintenance dredging generally or conditionally—I have said that the Government’s intend to use exemption orders made under the power in clause 4 to do that—we will of course be looking to define the activity more precisely. In doing so, we may want to determine more exactly who should and should not be allowed to carry out maintenance dredging operations without a licence. That may or may not be the approach taken.

The current exemption in clause 74 allows dredging and associated deposits to be carried out on behalf of harbour authorities in accordance with the local legislation or harbour order. As competent authorities, harbour authorities have a statutory duty to undertake these activities. The Bill is about regulating proportionately and in accordance with the risks that each activity poses. It would be a backward step if we gave operators who have no statutory duties regarding environmental protection a carte blanche to carry out those dredging activities without any kind of environmental control.

Some dredging disposals bound for sea disposal may contain contaminated sediment, and it is vital that proper environmental assessments be undertaken and adequate measures subsequently taken to prevent harm to the environment and human health, or to prevent interference with other users of the sea—a point raised by the hon. Member for St. Ives. We will need to consult thoroughly and take all scientific evidence into account before making an exemption order. If maintenance  dredging is thought to pose a low risk, I hope we can come to some consensus on how to define it. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Richard Benyon (Shadow Minister, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Newbury, Conservative)

The hon. Member for St. Ives made a good point about the potential impact on the hydrology of the area in question, but what we are talking about here is often small-scale dredging operations, which are vital for local businesses. He made a point about spoil disposal, where it is done and how it relates to other areas. Again, that is important, but I urge the Committee not to legislate on the basis of the most indolent and stupid managers of marinas or similar environments. Otherwise, we will go down a regulatory path that could limit the rights of sea anglers to fish in certain areas. I know how that would excite certain members of the Committee. One or two sea anglers might do some stupid things, but 1.3 million of them do not.

We must be careful how we regulate. We also have to bear in mind the costs for small marinas and other leisure activities. These are not large income-yielding businesses. These are often highly marginal and if we over-regulate, it could impose a burden that could make some of them unviable. With this Bill we should be encouraging leisure and tourism activities. We have to think of the path of least resistance when it comes to regulation such as this. To impose levels of bureaucracy on very small-scale operations would be a mistake.

The Minister’s comments are well made. Here we are again in a slight state of flux as the Government go out to consultation. Clearly, it would be the wrong time to press the amendment. She talked about the need for proportionality: that is a key word. As for the definition of maintenance dredging, I urge her to look at the definition we have provided, rather than the current opaque one, which seems to entail looking at more than 10 years of data on the sediment in the estuarial environment. That seems an extremely complex way of defining maintenance dredging. With those thoughts in mind, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.